This is Apartheid?

When the Arab world is ready to make peace, Israel will be there.

Two weeks ago the editor of the largest newspaper in South Africa, The Sunday Times, wrote an article saying that Israel applies apartheid to Palestinian Arabs. In this scandalous accusation, he joins Jimmy Carter and others who have defamed the Jewish state.

The apartheid label is very dangerous. If it sticks, Israel's ability to defend itself diplomatically and militarily will be severely weakened. International pressure on South Africa's apartheid government eventually played a major role in ending its power. The apartheid label is calculated to break the resolve of the Israeli people, who are called upon to make terrible sacrifices for our Jewish state. Who wants to die for apartheid?

As Jews, we must fight this kind of mass defamation of our people. Israel's security and Jewish lives all over the world depends on it, as well as our historic God-given mission of being "a light unto the nations." To say that Israel is an apartheid state is as wildly outrageous as the blood libels of Europe.

To answer the editor of South Africa's Sunday Times, I wrote an article which he kindly published in last week's newspaper. Here follow its arguments:

To accuse Israel of apartheid is to diminish the victims of the real apartheid -- the men, women and children of South Africa, who suffered for centuries under arrogant, heartless colonialism, and then for decades under the brutal policies of racial superiority, oppression and separation inflicted by the National Party. If everything is apartheid, then nothing is apartheid.

In the State of Israel all citizens -- Jew and Arab alike -- are equal before the law. Israel has none of the apartheid legislative machinery devised to discriminate against and to separate people. It has no Population Registration Act, no Group Areas Act, no Mixed Marriages and Immorality Act, no Separate Representation of Voters Act, no Separate Amenities Act, no pass laws or any other of the myriad apartheid laws.

Israel is a vibrant liberal democracy which accords full political, civil and other human rights to all its people.

On the contrary: Israel is a vibrant liberal democracy which accords full political, civil and other human rights to all its people, including its one million-plus Arab citizens, many of whom hold positions of authority throughout the Jewish state -- including that of cabinet minister, Knesset member and judge at every level of the judiciary, the Supreme Court included.

All citizens vote on the same voters' roll in regular, multiparty elections, and there are Arab parties and Arab members of other parties in the Knesset. Due to Israel's proportional representation system, Arab voters, although a minority, have often been partners in various coalition governments and influenced major long-term decisions affecting the country.

Arabs and Jews live and work together, share all public facilities, including, importantly, hospitals and schools, and also malls, buses, cinemas and parks. Israel protects religious freedom and has been very sensitive and respectful in its management of the holy sites of all religions, granting easy access to everyone.

Arab Israelis, like all their compatriots, can express themselves and act freely as members of a transparent and open, democratic society, where criticism of the government in an aggressively free press is the norm.

In fact, Israeli Arabs enjoy more freedom and rights than do any other Arabs in the Middle East, where autocratic governments suppress democracy and freedoms, such as freedom of expression and of association, including outlawing labor unions. Israel is the only truly free democracy in the Middle East.

If there is apartheid in the Middle East, then it is the apartheid in Arab states against Jews, Christians and women, who are all denied the most basic human rights and treated as second-class citizens.

Most Arab governments do not even allow Jews to visit, let alone live. In fact, more than 800,000 Jews have been expelled from Arab countries over the last five decades, where they lived peacefully for centuries, albeit with inferior status.

In 1967, as a result of a defensive war thrust upon it, Israel captured the territories known today as the West Bank and Gaza. Since then the status of these territories and their occupants has been unclear. It is incorrect legally, factually and even morally to speak of an occupation, which implies there was once a Palestinian entity in these territories, and that this is now occupied by Israeli forces.

Before 1967 the West Bank was controlled by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt. We should not speak of the "occupied territories," but more accurately of "disputed territories."

There has never been a Palestinian state in all of history. By contrast, the State of Israel is the third Jewish state on the same land, the first dating back 3,280 years to when Joshua led the Jewish people into the land of Israel. Furthermore, Israel has strong claims to the West Bank, which is part of the biblical Israel that the Jews have always lived in. One of the holiest sites of Judaism is there - Hebron, where the founding fathers and mothers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, are buried.

Apart from the city of Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the Jewish people from the times of King David, the West Bank and Gaza were never annexed, pending the resolution of their status. For decades Israel tried to negotiate with various parties to permanently resolve the future of the disputed territories, but is still in search of a genuine peace partner to represent the Palestinian Arabs.

Yasser Arafat demonstrated his inability to relinquish his dream of destroying Israel when he rejected prime minister Ehud Barak's incredibly generous offer at the Camp David talks in 2000 - a rejection which even Prince Bandar, the official representative of Saudi Arabia at the talks, described as a crime.

And now Hamas, which states in its founding constitution its aim of destroying Israel completely, is the democratically elected majority party of the Palestinian people.

As an example of what they are talking about, the apartheid accusers point to Israel's security fence and checkpoints, which limit the movement of people from the disputed territories into the internationally recognized borders of the State of Israel. In this they are also wrong.

After the collapse of the Camp David talks, Arafat and other Palestinian groups dispatched suicide bomber after suicide bomber into Israel, targeting Jewish civilians. In the past eight years, terrorist attacks have led to more than 1,300 civilians being murdered and 10,000 wounded by the human guided missiles of the Islamic suicide bombers.

Given Israel's relatively small population, proportionately, such carnage in South Africa would mean more than 10,000 murdered and more than 80,000 injured. What would we South Africans do if so many of our fellow citizens were blown up by suicide bombers? Appreciate for the moment what this would mean in the context of the US, where the murder of about 3,000 people at the World Trade Center bombings led to the invasion of two countries. Proportionately, had the US sustained similar causalities to those suffered in Israel, almost 80,000 Americans would have been killed and about 600,000 injured.

The fence has been remarkably successful and has reduced successful suicide bombings by up to 90 percent.

The trauma inflicted on the Israeli people from the relentless barrage unleashed by the Palestinian leadership, enjoying widespread support from its people, is indescribable. Israel erected a security fence to shield it from the attacks launched from the disputed territories across its internationally recognized borders. Every sovereign country is legally and morally entitled to erect a fence to defend its people from attacks launched from the outside.

The fence has been remarkably successful and has reduced successful suicide bombings by up to 90 percent. Israel relies on the most fundamental moral and legal principle - the right to self-defense. Never before in recorded history has any nation endured such civilian casualties and responded with such restraint.

The security fence is a defensive instrument, and the most humanitarian one possible in a situation where the alternative is heavy military action which would result in the death of thousands.

None of this has anything to do with apartheid, and everything to do with an ongoing war over the disputed territories, and over the very existence of the Jewish state. After nearly 2,000 years of exile, persecutions and genocides, the Jewish people are surely entitled to a tiny strip of country to call their own.

If there is an analogy to the South African situation, it is that Israel is like the African National Congress, which was forced into the armed struggle because it had no partner for peace. As soon as the National Party came around to wanting genuinely negotiations, the situation was resolved. Our South African experience has taught us that you cannot make peace unless both parties to the conflict wish to resolve it.

When the Arab world is ready to make peace, Israel will be there. Let us all pray to God that this happens soon so that the misery and suffering of all can be brought to an immediate end.

Visitor Comments: 37

(37)
Kerry,
January 16, 2012 2:55 PM

Unconditional Surrender is needed.

Regardless of the facts, when a people are driven by religious fanaticism against the infidel, there will never be peace. To hope for peace is wishful thinking because most Arab/Muslims are consumed and driven by the desire to destroy Israel, and establish worldwide Sharia Law.
Remember if a Palestinian State is created it will be free of Jews.

(36)
Dvirah,
July 7, 2009 2:08 PM

Another Point...

Additionally, since Apartheid is a matter of the internal laws of a country, saying that Israel practices Apartheid is saying that the disputed territories legitamately belong to Israel - for only then can they be "internal."

(35)
Anonymous,
September 3, 2008 9:02 PM

So True! This Article is the Truth

Wow! You could have substituted the words India and Indians for Israel and Israelis, and Muslims for Palestinians in this excellent article and it would still be true.
India also gets accused of mistreating Muslims but they have grown to 20% of the population and are growing. They are free to go to Pakistan and Bangladesh but don't want to. The Muslims serve in the Indian government, get preferential admission and treatment in schools, universities and at work.
Muslims in India also have more rights than they would in Islamic countries. India even pays all expenses for Muslims to visit the Saudi Arabian Pilgrimage Haj (not sure of the spelling here, sorry.) Hindu temples are being destroyed and Mosques are popping up left and right all over India. In Kashmir, all native Hindus were driven out by force and violence.
India, like Israel, is a democracy surrounded by hostile nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. The evil terrorists behave the exact same way in India and Israel. Only difference, the secular Indian politicians are scared of Islamic people so they won't investigate terrorist incidences and won't punish islamic terrorists appropriately, if at all. They are scared and don't wish to make waves.
Ask the average Hindu Indian in private about their opinions about the problem of Islamic terrorism.

(34)
Shirley Hiller,
August 30, 2008 6:30 PM

I can't help but wonder if the editor of the Sunday Times in South Africa travels around wearing a blindfold, as i am quite sure he does not know what is going on in his own country.
I wonder again, can he not see little children dying from starvation, drinking infected water and dying from Aids, to say nothing about the adults.
Again i wonder, does he not know that here in the UK we are inundated with appeals each time we turn on our televisions, open our newspapers, switch on our radios and computers, asking for donations to help these pitiful people, and when we see pictures of them it feels us with sadness, so we send money as we are human beings.
Again i wonder, does he not know that when there is an international conference in South Africa on hunger, the delegates stay in five star hotels, eat the best of everything, drink special bottled water, apart from the finest wines and spirits, while just two miles away little children lay dying from the lack of food and water, and outside the whole conference is hijacked by anti-Israel demonstrators, and this editor has the effrontery to insult Israel by calling her an apartheid state? I have never seen an appeal from that little country asking for donations to help any starving Arabs, of which she has over one million, not bad for a country with a six million population, who has done so much in just sixty years and is always the first to offer help to others.
I wonder again, when the place they call the West Bank and Gaza was inhabited by Arabs from 1948 to 1967, why did they not build a country for themselves? i am sure the Jordanians and Egyptians would have helped, and why did they not call themselves Palestinians until 1967? i guess its a case of whats yours is mine.I am afraid they will never have a state as the rest of the Arab world prefer to keep them as pawns, and it is time they realized you can't be a citizen of a country that does not exist and never has.
Israel has had to fight throughout her sixty years and has sacrificed so many of her people, but when the Arabs have run out of black gold and the world has no time for them, Israel will remain.
I suggest the editor who fills me with disgust takes off his blindfold and has a good look all around.
One thing i do not have to wonder about is that anti-Israel equals anti-semitism
Thank you so very much Rabbi Goldstein for a brilliant article.

(33)
Gary Katz,
August 26, 2008 11:48 AM

The Wall

The wall is designed to keep terrorists from flooding into Israel. It's easy for outsiders to criticize the wall, because they're not the ones at risk. Israel doesn't wish to become Baghdad, with suicide bombers lurking around every corner. Pretty reasonable, the notion of self preservation. Finally, many countries have had walls. The good ones have walls to keep people out. The bad ones have walls to keep people in.

(32)
Areyh,
August 26, 2008 9:30 AM

Hypocracy

Thank You for a lucid response that clearly sets out the facts. The editor of the Sunday Times in South Africa lives behind high walls and electric fences. Why? Who is he afraid of? Who is he trying to keep out? What is trying to protect?.
The bottom line is that when it comes to Israel the "rules of engagement" are different and do you want to know why? We are a light unto nations and we must always know that all our actions are under the spotlight in the same way as it is with Hashem

(31)
s,
August 26, 2008 1:56 AM

that's what people need to understand, the fence that is in Israel is just for security
great article

(30)
shells,
August 25, 2008 2:45 PM

thank YOU

and thanks be to G-d that not only were you able to write this, but also the newspaper printed it for there is much to learn from it and I pray that it is read and understood. with love and hugs... shalom.... your shells x

(29)
Pamela,
August 25, 2008 6:14 AM

The so called Palestinians

Very good article, one should rememeber that the original Palestinians pre 1948 were Jewish.infact the majority of the population of East Jerusalem pre 1948 -1700's was Jewish, not Muslim, The Jewish people have lived cotinually in the Land of Israel for over 3,000 years. Why does everyone call the Arabs Palestinians, they are NOT Palestinian they are Muslims, any one under 60 years old is not Palestinian, there is no such country,

(28)
Anonymous,
August 25, 2008 2:59 AM

I think this was an extremely well written rebuttal. It saddens me that as
Jews we would ever even be
accused of apatheid given our history.

(27)
Philip,
August 24, 2008 9:37 PM

Excellent article

Thank you for an excellent, well-written article that provides me with information I need to discuss this issue calmly and based on facts.

(26)
Elly,
August 22, 2008 10:16 AM

Security wall

Dear Rabbi Goldstein, why not take a drive past the editor's home? Does he have any form of security in place to protect his family from threats to their safety? A wall perhaps?

(25)
Yaffa Dreams,
August 22, 2008 8:52 AM

Thank you Rabbi for writing this article. Very well said.

(24)
Yocheved,
August 22, 2008 3:56 AM

Thank you, Rabbi Goldstein, for a very clear and concise answer to the apartheid label given to Israel. I have sent this overseas to friends and relatives. Thank goodness someone has the wording to defend us.

(23)
Daniela,
August 21, 2008 9:14 AM

Excuse me Anonymous, 20/8/2008

If you look on any normal map or globe or atlas, do you see Palestine there ?? I didn't think so.

(22)
Vanessa Andrews,
August 21, 2008 8:13 AM

Like - It's so PERFECT in S.A DUDE!

Every Country has a right to protect it's citizens. HOWEVER some countries like, SOUTH AFRICA - which I am a citizen of - obviously feels that: Protection for South African citizens is NOT a RIGHT but a PRIVALIGE. Since 1994 citizens of South Africa, black and white alike have become victoms of murders, killing sprees on farmers and families, robberies - child abuse is rife in this country - The Police Chief and many MANY policemen are bribing citizens on a daily basis for cash, the Govenment is also not doing much as citizens now have to spend millions on private security companies to patrol their streets and put up cameras AND WE CITIZENS PAY TAX for the upkeep of police deparments - Yet the Editor of a South African news paper chooses to point his croggy little finger to Israel and has the CHUTZPA to write negatively about a country who wants to protect their citizens from Terrorist Attacks.Mr Editor when you point one finger there are 4 pointing back!! It is obvious you have no education in history, politics or even worldly news or MAYBE you were writing in support of your Comerades!

(21)
Jack,
August 20, 2008 9:47 PM

Extend an invitation

Invite that editor to come to Israel and live in Sderot.

(20)
Laura G,
August 20, 2008 8:41 PM

Rob Barnett is wrong

There was no ethnic cleansing of Arabs 1947-1949. Many fled because they were afraid or because their leaders told them to do so. Israel, the winner of the 1967 war, has been suing for peace since then. The Israeli efforts have been met by Arab refusals to negotiate safe and secure borders. Israel is acting to protect itself as much as possible. There will not be peace until the Palestinians want a country more than they want to destroy Israel.

(19)
Anonymous,
August 20, 2008 12:05 PM

Palestine DOES exist

Responding to comment #17, to say that there is no Palestine is factually incorrect. 'Palestine' as a word is like many other words in that it has multiple meanings. Many people erroneously assume that its use in the context of British Mandate Palestine, as a political administrative unit, is the only use of the term. They thus use it in a political context that today has no literal application. It is true that today Palestine as a political unit does not exist. However, Palestine is also a geographic term. It is a term that has been in use for centuries to describe the geographic region from the Mediterranean Sea east to the Jordan River, and limited surrounding zones in Syria and Jordan. In this sense, there definitely IS a Palestine. So no matter who you think ought to be living there, to say their is no Palestine is still a factually incorrect statement.

(18)
Daniela,
August 19, 2008 8:50 AM

I'm surprised the wall is not mentioned

Whenever we talk about the security fence, a picture of the wall part of it is shown somewhere. It's confusing to people. I'm surprised the article does not mention that the wall part of the fence makes up only 3% of it. People need to know that. And they need to know why that part is concrete as opposed to the rest which is only fence, and why 97% of it is only fence.

(17)
Antonio,
August 18, 2008 10:44 AM

This is Apartheid?

No! There is no Palestine. Palestine is an invention of foreigners. All of Israel is for the Jews. The arabs don't want to live with the Jews and they want to expel them and any non-Muslim arabs from the Holy Land. It's holy because the Almighty gave it to the Jews. Not to the Swedes, not to the Americans, not to the South Africans. It's the Jewish homeland. No one raises a voice of objection to the stated arab claim to expel all Jews from Palestine but change the motive to expel all arabs and suddenly Israelis are racist and fascist. It makes my blood boil!! For over 60 years the Jews of Israel have been willing to live at peace with arabs, Muslim and Christian. It's a real insult when foreigners feel at liberty to dictate Israel's domestic policy when they say NOTHING about the Muslim Arabs' stated and well publised policy of the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of all Jews from the land. Wall, No! Expulsion of the Palestini, Yes! I'm sorry if this sounds intolerant but I get very angry at the double standard. The Jews are not going to leave Israel, the wall will not come down until Palestinian Arabs are willing to live at peace with their Israeli neighbors. It's that simple.

(16)
Rob Barnett,
August 18, 2008 8:01 AM

Not Apartheid?

While Israel proper is not, strictly speaking, apartheid, Rabbi Goldstein's article is rather disenguous and seems to dance around the problematic nature of Israeli conduct in this area. Israel is not apartheid simply because Zionist forces went to extensive and sufficient efforts to ethnically cleanse the non-Jewish populations of Palestine in the 1947-49 period, enabling the creation of a viable Jewish demographic majority. It's not apartheid, but ethnic cleansing and the mistreatment, uprooting, and dispossession of others doesn't rank as being much better, Rabbi Goldstein. Also, Israel's conduct in the West Bank and pre-2005 Gaza was actual apartheid, where Jewish communities were able to live under Israeli civilian rule, while surrounding Arab areas were under military administration, and the maintenance of Jewish-only bypass roads that Arabs couldn't use was also part and parcel of this.

(15)
Fisterman Tomy,
August 18, 2008 1:28 AM

Defensive walls were used against enemy's attacking forces for hundred of years. The latest ones were the Maginot Line (between France and Germany) and The Alpine Line (between France and Italy).
At that time, the walls were of strategic necessity as they are today.
On many occasions, the walls fulfilled their strategic functions, on others, they failed miserably, i.e. Maginot Line.
Perusing any history manuals and/or books, specifically dedicated to those defensive walls, one will never find any suggestion that any of them was erected for apartheid reasons.
So, why is Israel’s wall classified, by Jimmy Carter and South Africa’s “The Sunday Times” differently, is beyond me to understand.
More so, apartheid is an offensive concept, whereas the walls, as proven by history, are only, by their nature, a defensive concept.
Such being the case, equating one with the other is not only illogical, but also absurd.

(14)
Anonymous,
August 17, 2008 9:24 PM

Re this atricle.

1. In regard to the the prase "from the disputed territories into the internationally recognized borders". One must remember that the only borders are: Lebanon's, the Arava (Jordan south of the Dead Sea)... All others are CEASE FIRE lines, hence the reason for the term "disputed".
2. One only has to look as far as the ORIGINAL PLO Charter of 1964, freely available on the website of the permanent Palestinian observer to the UN. Article 24 of this document states that the West Bank and Gaza are the territories of Jordan and Egypt respectively.
3. Until the end of the British Mandate, the term "Palestinian" was used exlusively in reference to the Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine.
4. Between 1949 and 1967, inclear violation of the terms of agreements, no Jew was allowed into th ewest Bank, specifically the Old City of Jerusalem, all Synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were desroyed, and Jewish tobsotnes form the cemetery on the Mount of Olives were used for paving material and latrines.
Had the Israelis behaved similarly after June 1967, there would be holes in the ground where the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa still stand, and there would be no control of that area by Muslims. Also there would be no Muslim worship allowed at the Machpelah (tomb of the Patriarchs) in Hebron, where for centuries Jews were only alowed as close as the 7th step.
5. It never ceases to amaze me that the Chritian world has never voiced ANY objection to the oft-repeated Palestinian (q.v. Arafat) claim that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. This is not only an attack on Jews, it is also a negation, of the New Testament...

(13)
Steve Skeete,
August 17, 2008 5:27 PM

Fools and their malice

The word Apartheid is a loaded word since it is associated with injustice and brutality. When a people are accused of practicing apartheid they are being told that their behaviour towards others is grossly inhumane and worthy of the severest censure, as was the case with the former white regime in South Africa.
When this term is used by persons of influence such as Former U.S. President Carter, it becomes a weapon intended to cause harm to the people of Israel by causing others to loath and despise them.
Accusations like this followed by rebuttals such as that by Rabbi Goldstein, ought to be given the widest possible exposure so that thinking personsmay be alerted to the warped and biased criticisms aimed at Israel, and be exposed to the facts.
These wild and inaccurate accusations must be put to rest swiftly and decisively. Like one wise man said one must sometimes "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes".
In our world "foolish" and malicious person abound everywhere. They must not only be answered but silenced with the truth.

(12)
Frank Adam,
August 17, 2008 2:16 PM

Apartheid is internal

Apartheid takes place inside a state or society and NOT between states or societies. The Arabs of the PA are not Israelis, never have been Israelis, not in their eyes, not in anybodies' eyes and do NOT wish to beIsraelis, so "apartheid " can not be applied to their relationship with Israel. Those who accuse Israel of apartheid imply the PA territories and Arab population are part of the Israeli polity. Such an inference is against the self determination of both the PA Arabs and the Israelis.

(11)
Anonymous,
August 17, 2008 12:10 PM

What to do with a South African Jew living in US who says Israel is an apartheid??

My belief is that Israel is definitely not an Apartheid...not even close! My city has a large South African Jewish population. I don't know how many of them believe as this one women, but she is passionate about the fact she believes Israel is an Apartheid and nobody can change her mind. She is active in all the left wing organizations that are "promoting" and working with Palestinians. Nothing wrong with that, but their left wing views of Israel are getting in the way!! What to do with this local woman???

(10)
Meir,
August 17, 2008 12:04 PM

#4 Ruth Housman

Both the article and Ms. Houseman's comments are riveting. Thank's to both of you.

(9)
Sanne-Marie,
August 17, 2008 11:22 AM

Apartheid

Apartheid is everywhere, South Africa was the first country to give it a name. Apartheid is between people, and now I am not speaking about race/color I am talking about society in general. For instance, the rich and the poor don't live next to one another. Kings do not dine with beggars. The problem in Israel is a problem older than time, so to say it is apartheid is a mistake - the newspaper article published is obviously missing the point and the depth of understanding. maybe they must re-investigate.
The bottomline is apartheid is everywhere in the world and although people in general are not practicing it consciously it is there. The only thing I believe that will kill things like apartheid is when we can sacrafice our egos, because the ego is the major cause of war in the world.

(8)
misterb,
August 17, 2008 9:53 AM

Equal?

Arabs in Israel may have many of the same rights as Jews, but they suffer discrmination socially. Only a small minority have any power. They may be free to "interact" with jews , but this rarely is the case. They live very seperate lives from the mainstream jewish population. I agree that there is no apartheid in Isral ,but the ancient fued between Arabs and Jews are still present, even if more subtle, for Jews and Arabs living as citizens of Israel.

(7)
MIchael Moorin,
August 17, 2008 9:00 AM

Not one fact

There is not one fact - historical, ethical, religious, military, economic or otherwise - that mitigates in favor of arab claims. Until the facts are repeated as often as the lies, the world will believe the lies. And the distance between the lies and the facts is the extent of anti-semitism.

(6)
Daniela,
August 17, 2008 8:15 AM

I'm dying to know -

What page was this article put on ? Was it given any prominence ? or was it tucked away where few would see it ?

(5)
Michael Dar,
August 17, 2008 8:08 AM

Peaceful coexistance between Arabs and Jews in Arab lands is a myth!
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html

(4)
ruth housman,
August 17, 2008 6:44 AM

apartheid

These are troubling issues to confront. I totally agree with the analysis as presented and yet... and yet. Years ago when I visited Israel for the first time there was unquestionable apartheid, or let us say, discrimination and this had to do with Black vs White Jews. I had many conversations walking along the water and heard stories that registered feelings. I have sat on airplanes next to Arabs and heard stories that registered feelings.
I have to wonder about this whole story, taken in its entirety, so many years of bloodshed for Israel, so many countries involved, so much hate, so much enmity, so much "right" on all sides.
What is hidden in the notion "apart hide"? Because there are so many that feel shut out, and yes, many that feel largesse, and that Israel has certainly done for so many others, what their own countries have never done for them.
This is an ancient feud. This is ancient land and people do not forget. The lemon tree in the backyard. Who once owned it?
Is this all about land? Is this about dispossession? Is this about what is mine and what is yours? Is this about the Holocaust and the persecution of Jews and their right to a Homeland?
What's this story about? This small country that emerged so beautifully from the aridity of desert. That we watered and made so fertile.
Why is there so much hate here, still and hate exists on both sides because historically, so much blood has been shed and continues to be shed. I have no truck with terrorists. I truly weep for all the bombings, for the fear of children in places that are still being hit. As for fences, they work and they also make for greater enmity as fences separate. The answer requires a new Solomon.
My question is less a comment than that eternal question: what is this story all about and how will it resolve peacefully? I do notice the word LOVE in evolution itself, a word that reads backwards.
I must believe in a peaceful solution as sol is for SUN, as sol is for the ancient designation of G_d, as sol is also aurally for soul. I also feel the loneliness, the solitary contemplation of what is, and what might be, and what might not be. The reel world or the real world. Can this dream ever be turned into reality?
I don't know how it will happen but I do feel, deeply, that Right has many names and many faces as G_d has many names and many faces. If we are truly one family, and I do sense this from Biblical truths, then, can we all exist together, govern together, live together? And if we did, would there be room enough in so small a country. And if we did, we would have to banish all distinctions, completely. Children would not see Arab, Jews, Palestinian or if they did it would be for culture, respect and mutual regard for tradition and story.
Yes, pray to G_d, for whom all things may be possible, for this is a dream.

(3)
Rosen,
August 17, 2008 6:25 AM

truth-seeking vs. political agendas

When there are critics of Israel's policies, they may not necessarily be seeking the truth, but setting their own political agenda.
Sometimes I come across very biased, one-sided articles that claim Israel is in violation of human rights, such as articles by a Palestinian journalist, Mohammed Omer, who claims the IDF brutally beaten him, but offers no pictures of his injuries - just a pen as it appears to denigrate Israel. I found one of Omer's articles on The Nation website, which appears slanted in favoring "Palestinian land", and I immediately sent a web letter in response concluding that even if Israel is wrong in any regard, does that make Palestinians any more right? My web letter appeared to be the only one that stood out defending Israel. I have learned that defending Israel, particularly by words, is called Kiddush Hashem.

(2)
Monika Kaufmann,
August 17, 2008 6:25 AM

There is no apartheid in Israel

I fully agree with Rabbi Goldstein. It is slandering Israel to compare it with the old South Africa. Israel is the only civilised country in the Middle East. I signed a petition against the Durban2 conference. Please let me know, when I can do more
Lots of love
Monika

(1)
Chaim R-B,
August 17, 2008 6:22 AM

The Defence That Fits the Crime.

With all the misery, death and destruction to which Israel has been subjected it is the epitome of chutzpa for anyone to accuse Israel of Apartheid for its reaction to suicidal massacre by constructing a wall. Hamas should indeed be made to pay for its construction for it has saved them many lives apart from blunting their efforts to add to their long list of murderous iniquities.
That her enemies are deaf to Israel's 60 yrs of pleading for peace is bad enough but for others to discount this door so long left open makes it legitimate to question where their sympathies lie and ask what happened to their sense of justice..

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...